Evidence of meeting #49 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Joseph Allen  Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)
Tamra Thomson  Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
Stephen Green  Secretary, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Janet Dench  Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Samy Agha

Noon

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Ms. Dench, in 2004, when Minister Sgro introduced the process...you've alluded just now about the concerns you raised, the things it wasn't going to address. Could you expand on that a bit? Did you have any specific suggestions about how things should be changed to address the problems you flagged? I think you talked about the potential for patronage through the back door and that it didn't address the reappointment and protection from partisan interests. Did you make any specific suggestions about how those two issues might be addressed in this process?

Noon

Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees

Janet Dench

I'd like to make a general comment. The Canadian Council for Refugees was not consulted by the minister, or the department, in advance of that announcement. Despite the fact that our organization has consistently raised our concerns on this matter and given input, we have never been consulted about what should be put in place. We were not part of the review process for the Harrison report.

We have looked at this process from the outside, and we have seen considerable problems. The impression we're given is that there continues to be such enthusiasm from the various governments to retain the powers to make appointments that they are reluctant to turn it over to a completely depoliticized appointment process. That's the explanation I give as to why they don't bring in interested organizations such as the CCR to discuss what would make sense as a process.

A number of people have commented. François Crépeau and other academics from Montreal have spent a lot of time giving their thought to this and looking at various different possibilities, but there never seems to have been any serious study given to those suggestions.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

I have to interrupt here. We're into eight minutes.

Mr. Komarnicki.

April 19th, 2007 / noon

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members, for presenting.

Certainly I noted the comments Ms. Dench made regarding the testing. I want to go to that. There are three issues that the Harrison report, as you call it, refer to. There was the objective written testing, the merging of the selection board and the advisory board, and the appointment of three of six members to the ultimate committee.

Firstly, with the testing, the report says, “The new test, per se, seems to us to represent a reasonable yardstick for screening candidates against the declared Member competencies.” So he came to the conclusion that the test is good.

He went on to say, “Candidate performance, against each of the four competencies assessed at the test phase, is graded from an 'A' (this is the low rating, 3 points), to an 'E' (the high rating, 15 points). Applicants scoring only A’s against the four competencies (12 points) are screened at the test phase.” That's how it should be.

Then he looked at what was actually happening, and he said, “It's important to note that under present practice a large number of candidates (28% of the current batch of referrals to the minister)”, who went through the advisory board and also through the selection board, “have failed to meet the agreed minimum competencies (i.e. at least 4 'Cs' and no grade less than C)”. They were screened in after this process.

I'm asking Mr. Allen, specifically, would you agree with the Harrison report in the sense that an objective written test is a good thing? His recommendation was to actually set a passing mark and screen out anyone who doesn't pass, as opposed to having the 28% failing.

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

That's a difficult question. I honestly don't believe that a written exam should trump all other considerations with regard to the selection of a member, particularly if you have confidence in your six-member panel.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Let me ask you this. Putting partisanship aside for the moment, if there were a particular job to do, I would expect someone to at least meet a certain bottom-line standard, regardless of the politics of the situation. It seems to me that this report is saying that you establish a minimum pass mark—as you would in any given venue—and if you didn't pass, you shouldn't even get before the advisory board or the selection board. Does that seem unreasonable?

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

No, particularly if you're getting a large volume of applicants.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Fair enough, but if you're going to get a fair amount of applicants, at least you want them to pass a minimal standard test. Agreed?

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Yes.

The other point he makes is that, “A further weakness of the present system is that, at present, few candidates are screened out after the [advisory panel] referral is made to the [selection board]”. He said, “114 attended the [selection board] interview and 104 were recommended to the Minister (i.e. [the greatest percentage] make it through the [board]”.

What I think he's saying is that if you set up a high enough initial objective standard by the written test, you might be able to use the one board, because the selection board was just about processing everything that came to them from the advisory panel. Would you agree with his conclusion?

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

I don't know what decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. It's very difficult to come to conclusions on the basis of those statistics. You have to rely—

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

You have to agree that screening out 22% of those referred to you, before they get referred to the minister, is not a high number.

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

But I don't know what the quality of the applicants was.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

We know at least 20% of them didn't make the grade.

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

If my math is correct, 78% did, and we're still stuck with our crisis.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

But you would agree that it's good to have an objective written test that they have to pass.

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

Absolutely.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

That was one recommendation.

Regarding the other recommendation, he talked about the selection process itself. In 2004, initially the announcement stated that “The advisory panel will be independent and representative of Canadians. Nominated by the IRB Chairperson and the Minister—”

In the end, he said that if you have one panel, you would have three members appointed by the minister, three appointed by the IRB chair, and the IRB chair would chair the whole group.

So it seems to be giving the minister input as to who might sit on the committee. But the decisions that are ultimately made by the advisory panel are still in the hands of the IRB chair. Is that not correct?

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

If that's your position, I presume they would advise the minister, if they were his appointees.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Even if you made that presumption, there are only three of them, and the chair appoints the other three and sits with respect to that committee and chairs.

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

What's the advantage to the advisory committee in its function of selecting candidates for reference to the minister? What's the advantage?

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

What's wrong with the minister appointing three people?

12:05 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

I've tried to explain it from my perception. I'm afraid there's a political tainting to the selection process.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

In terms of the present selection board, some of those appointed were academics, former public servants, civil servants, community people, and people with human resource backgrounds.

Why do you think the minister is not as easily able to appoint those categories as the IRB chair, who is appointed by someone?

12:10 p.m.

Attorney and President, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI)

Joseph Allen

Simply because it is the minister who is appointing them. That's the position we're taking.